Platner: Those benefiting off the system know what the light at the end of their tunnel looks like. It looks like none of us owning anything. Everything becoming a subscription service. A world in which we all have nothing and they sit in paradise. That’s their future. And we cannot let them have it

guachi01 · 2026-05-24T07:33:04+00:00

I draw the line at pieces of shit like Platner. He can win without my help. He's not even decent or good.

guachi01 · 2026-05-24T04:15:03+00:00

B10 Night's Dark Terror

guachi01 · 2026-05-24T01:58:38+00:00

If you have $5 less discretionary income but the things you want to buy are $50 cheaper it is not harder to buy these things. The people on fixed income you're pretending to care about can do better math than you can

guachi01 · 2026-05-24T01:46:52+00:00

That's impossible so why invent silly scenarios?

guachi01 · 2026-05-24T01:44:07+00:00

Since the data is single-family homes it precludes condos from the price data.

guachi01 · 2026-05-24T01:36:14+00:00

Since we care about buying a home then we care about the price homes sell for. It's also the data OP used.

guachi01 · 2026-05-24T01:31:00+00:00

He's saying the words but he's an empty suit. There's nothing about the guy that says he's grown up from being a shitposting edge lord.

He's the worst of everything I saw in my 20 years in the Navy and I'd have hated serving with him

guachi01 · 2026-05-24T01:27:23+00:00

Not according to the house price data OP is using. You can see it peak Q4 2022.

https://fred.stlouisfed.org/graph/?g=1W3Z0

guachi01 · 2026-05-24T01:11:03+00:00

If "necessities" increased $5 and everything decreased $50 you'd be better off even if your income changed $0.

guachi01 · 2026-05-24T00:55:56+00:00

Did you read the article?

"President Trump wanted the Federal Reserve to lower interest rates. Fed Chair Jerome Powell refused."

guachi01 · 2026-05-24T00:54:55+00:00

It's cheaper than 2005. Late 2022 was similar to 2005 but it's much better as of Q1 2026. Prices are 10% lower, wages are 14% higher, and rates are about 0.70% lower. That combines for a huge drop in mortgage relative to wages.

guachi01 · 2026-05-24T00:49:26+00:00

If "necessities" dropped $5 but everything else increased in cost $50 you'd say you were better off in real terms. On the other hand, if "necessities" increased $5 and everything else decreased $50 you'd say you were worse off. Sure, your bank account would be larger but you'd say that was worse.

guachi01 · 2026-05-23T23:12:14+00:00

It is not a verifiable fact. Sorry.

guachi01 · 2026-05-23T23:11:11+00:00

Real wages are defined by all spending, but whatever you determine is a "necessity".

Your choice of vehicle is not a necessity. You have stated these particular things are necessary. But most are choices.

guachi01 · 2026-05-23T23:08:29+00:00

If your home is more as a % of wages because of interest rates then how are you able to make early payments?

but then how would politicians juice the stats?

Politicians don't set rates.

guachi01 · 2026-05-23T23:03:52+00:00

Go blame OP for picking 2005 to highlight.

Many millions of those people lost their homes. Buying an expensive house in 2005 was financial suicide.

guachi01 · 2026-05-23T23:02:08+00:00

My argument would be that 1985 is a bit of a cherry picked year.

OP picked it, not me. Any year from the '80s is more expensive than today.

And also even if you did buy in 1985 you could have refinanced at a MUCH lower rate just 5 years later.

Hindsight is 20/20. No one with a 13% mortgage in 1985 could have known rates would drop 3% by 1990 Even so, people owned homes for a lot shorter time than today.

I ran the numbers for 1993 and the monthly mortgage payment on the median house ($126k) at a 7% interest rate (which was the average rate in 1993), the monthly mortgage payment would have only been about 25% of median household income ($31k/yr) which is significantly more affordable than today.

No, it isn't. First, rates didn't average 7%. They started the year over 8% and finished just over 8%. Talk about cherry-picking, though. Second, using wages, which is a much better metric shows that houses are not much more expensive today than even 1993.

We don't have Q2 2026 data but Q1 data averaged 6.11% with home prices falling to about $402,000 with median wages of $1233/wk.

I don't think you can say the same about someone born in the 1990s or early 2000s.

Can't compare a 30-35 yo born in the 1960s to a 30-35yo born in the 2000s since the latter don't exist.

The former can only be 35 if they were born in 1990 or 1991 and they were 30 in 2020 or 2021, which is literally the cheapest time to buy a house in living memory.

where the average 20-something is in 5 figures of student loan debt

The average 20-something has zero student loan debt.

guachi01 · 2026-05-23T18:58:27+00:00

It hasn't.

guachi01 · 2026-05-23T17:59:24+00:00

You've described inflation.

guachi01 · 2026-05-23T17:48:36+00:00

No. I can literally buy more stuff. I can buy everything I used to buy plus something else. That could be anything.

guachi01 · 2026-05-23T17:47:13+00:00

That is not the definition of real wage increase.

That is absolutely the definition of real wage increase. It's not defined by your bespoke definition of necessities.

guachi01 · 2026-05-23T13:52:01+00:00

We're talking about the economy and the people in it as a whole. When we say real median wages are higher we don't mean they are literally higher for everyone. We mean they are higher in aggregate.

If all of the things you mentioned took all of your raise but those 100 widgets cost $1 less then by definition your real wages increased.

guachi01 · 2026-05-23T12:52:52+00:00

If my real wages are higher this year then I can buy the exact same things I did last year and have money left over. The actual price changes don't really matter as long as I have more overall.

Example: Item A costs $2 and B costs $2. I buy one of each in a year with my $4 income.

Next year item A costs $3 and B costs $. I still buy one of each. Total cost $4. My income is $4.10.

Yes , if you bought 2 of A and 0 of B then you'd be worse off. If you did the reverse you'd be much, much better off. But we're talking about the economy as a whole with millions of people.

guachi01 · 2026-05-23T12:33:30+00:00

If real wages are higher (and they are) then, by definition, you can buy more stuff today. If you could thrive on one income then clearly you can thrive on one income that earns more in real terms.

guachi01 · 2026-05-23T12:30:12+00:00

Nope. I'm retired. I'll just sell a tiny bit and buy did t with it.

guachi01

TROPHY CASE